Spintested: 09/30/12

Obamanomics: A Counterhistory

Sunday, September 30, 2012

The American taxpayer has been subsidizing pharmaceutical companies for decades with the promise that the R&D we were paying for would result in lower prices and breakthrough cures. Instead, we've been stuck with higher prices (twice as much as other industrialized countries) while the pharmaceutical companies try to snag new markets overseas with what were to be our discounts.

Not only did Obama break his campaign pledge (of the government, PhRma biggest customer, negotiating for lower priced drugs, and reimporting pharmaceuticals), he gave PhRma a huge gift. The deal that Obama made with PhRma wasn't for PhRma to go up against Big Insurance; it was for PhRma to help sell a plan that makes more profits for Big Insurance.

PhRma paid chump change ($80 billion over 10 years, plus $150 million for ads to support a plan that had NO public option) so that they could keep massive profits and k!II public healthcare. Obama (who had dropped the public option and the universal requirement) let the pharmaceutical industry continue to make obscene profits, and gave the insurance industry a clear field and new customers, all paid for with taxpayers' money.

Oh, and by the way, $80 billion over 10 years is less than 1% of the profits PhRma makes a year.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obamanomics: A Counterhistory

ACA was an invention of the rightwing think tank the Heritage Foundation, and it is Part 2 of Bush's Medicare Reform Act of 2003.

If Republicans succeed in repealing it, the reason is so that they can reintroduce it with a few minor changes to throw off the dumber of their constituents and collect their share of booty from the insurance and pharmaceutical industries.

If you don't want to believe that the parties work in tandem, build upon each other's 'successes' (on behalf of corporations), just look at Bush's 2003MedicareReformAct and RomneyCare, both of which mirror ACA, and keep the problem in place (insurance companies as the gatekeepers to Americans getting medical treatment and employment-provided insurance, both of which EVERYBODY wanted ended, skyrocketing costs of medical care, no cost controls and not universal)?

Fercrissakes, look at the donut hole!

The 'donut-hole' that never should have existed in the first place, and that the DLC-controlled Democrats created as a "compromise" for Bush's Medicare Reform Act of 2003 (another massive corporate giveaway package).

The whole of Medicare Part D was a scam and a scheme by both pro-corporate parties, a "first step" (as Obama's 'most ardent supporters' like to say) towards privatizing public healthcare.

In 2003, PhRMA lobbied hard and got Congress to insert language into the bill that created a Medicare drug benefit that prohibits Medicare from using its market clout to negotiate with manufacturers for lower drug prices and making sure the drug benefit was only available through private insurance plans.

The result was that Medicare members can only get drug coverage by joining a private insurance plan. People who have both Medicare and Medicaid (dual-eligibles) were switched from Medicaid prescription drug coverage to a private Medicare drug plan. Prescription drugs for this population cost 30% more under the new private Medicare drug plans than they did under Medicaid, increasing pharmaceutical companies' profits by at least $3.7 billion dollars in just the first two years of the program. For example, Bristol Myers earned a windfall of almost $400 million, thanks to higher prices for the stroke medication Plavix.

KEEP READING
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obamanomics: A Counterhistory

In February 2010, when proponents of a public option were finally making some headway between the time that the House passed its version of healthcare reform and the time that the Senate passed its version (and it's important to remember that Obama never pressured BlueDogs or JoeLieberman, never used the power of the WhiteHouse and never took to the bully pulpit to advocate for a public option), Obama held a 'make it or break it bipartisan summit' at the WhiteHouse which was gamed to prevent public option proponents from getting real reform, (affordable quality medical care for everyone). PO proponents were shut out of the negotiations. Why wasn't AnthonyWeiner or any proponents of public healthcare, of a public option, of single payer, at that summit?

The summit was gamed to let insurance companies retain their lock on the path to getting healthcare.

Whether it's Republicans saying no or Democrats saying yes, to attend this summit you must have accepted that the insurance industry's ability to make profits off of you be preserved and protected, despite it bankrupting the American people individually and the nation at large.

Insurance adds nothing to the medical model. The InsuranceIndustry is the 'Don Fanucci' (Godfather, Part II) of medical care; the insurance industry is "wetting its beak", letting you get medical care (maybe, if you can afford the deductibles, the co-pays, and if your illness is covered by your policy, but) only if you pay them a gratuity up front.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obamanomics: A Counterhistory

There is no path from ACA to SinglePayer - That was the purpose of it. If you believe it's a step forward, lay out the path from ACA to single payer. In detail.

As far as not being able to get single payer, that was the mandate of the 2008 election - To get affordable, quality medical care for everyone. ACA doesn't do that. ACA is a continuation of what exists, with the added bonus of the corporate medical industry draining more from citizens, by mandate.

There's rarely a majority in Congress to pass anything at all until a campaign has been mounted to sell it. And when a president and his political party are swept into power to deliver affordable, quality medical treatment for all as Obama and Democrats were in 2008, and the one method that can accomplish it (and also happens to solve other unique problems facing us at the time, i.e., a crashing economy, joblessness, etc.) that president not only doesn't use his bully pulpit to sell, but unilaterally takes off the table, removes from even discussing it, then the fix is in and that president is corrupt to the core.

Obama took SinglePayer (MedicareForAll) off the table, because if the goal is to get affordable quality medical care for all then everything else pales in comparison. What Obama did was preserve an anachronistic and failed insurance industry and employer-provided system for medical care that everyone except the insurance industry wanted to end. It's government sanctioned racketeering.

All of the evidence points to ACA being a scheme to eliminate public healthcare of all kinds. Medicare and Medicaid are set for carving after this election, along with Social Security.

KEEP READING
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obamanomics: A Counterhistory

1. Democrats first had a filibuster-proof Senate of 60 senators from April 28, 2009, when Arlen Specter switched parties. On July 7, 2009 Al Franken was sworn in and Democrats' supermajority continued until August 25, 2009 when Ted Kennedy died. Democrats continued to have a filibuster-proof Senate of 60 senators when Paul Kirk was sworn in to fill Kennedy's seat on September 24, 2009 until Scott Brown was sworn in on February 4, 2010.

2. The stimulus was weak tea compared to what was needed (and heavily diluted by the usual upper class tax cuts that had lesser stimulative effect), as economic experts around the nation told Obama.

As far as Scott Brown's win, don't get me started on that absurd campaign.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

How President Obama Can Win the First Debate

The forces governing this country, under our system of Inverted Totalitarianism, aren’t afraid of elections, speeches, petitions on Facebook, and certainly not the media they control. They’re only afraid of what the American people could do if enough of us rise up and just plain refuse to work within the system any more. General strikes, peaceful civil disobedience in large numbers, removal of funds from major banks, filling the streets, that’s what might get their attention, not voting for a “green” candidate or one of the duopoly.

This election is merely a distraction. They’re counting on American’s propensity for magical thinking, and that most of us will vote and carry-on because we believe in the idea of America, and don’t look deeply enough to see the reality of what it’s become.

About Barack Obama 2012
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

How President Obama Can Win the First Debate

I’m tired of hearing the argument that “Romney would be a disaster,” or “the Supreme Court would be more conservative.” Actually, if it were possible for Romney to win this election, it would probably be the best thing for the country in the long run. Why? Obama can get away with doing anything, as far as the left is concerned. After the election, he will “make a deal” on Social Security, lowering benefits and increasing the retirement age, in fact, he’s already said he supports it. The left will go along with it, because he’ll sell it as the “best deal he could get,” just like he sold the insurance company bonanza that is Obamacare. The left will go along with his approval of the northern half of the sludgepipe, and probably the bombing of Iran as well. Actually, there’s almost nothing he won’t be able to get away with.

Romney, on the other hand, won’t be able to get away with anything. He’ll do the exact same things Obama would have done, but the left won’t stand for it. Not for a moment! Romney doing the same things, might even put hundreds-of-thousands of people in the streets, which will be the only way this country might have a chance of surviving.

The system we’re living under is rotten to the core. Our government, all three branches, is a wholly-owned subsidiary of our banks and major corporations. We’ve run out of time for incremental changes and tweaks to the system, it must be replaced. The effects of climate change: the food and water shortages, relocations, and increasingly violent weather, are going to be combined with another major economic crash, and coming energy shortages due to the effects of peak oil, and upsets in the Middle East.

Our government is fully aware of these facts. Why, for goodness sake, has Homeland Security purchased and distributed millions of rounds of .40 hollow point ammunition, which is illegal under the Geneva Convention? Why have police forces all across the land been equipped to the point where some of them could defeat most countries armies? Why has our society become the most heavily surveiled in the entire world? Do you really think that voting for one candidate or the other is going to change where all this is headed? If you do, I’m afraid that you’re just engaging in more of that magical thinking I mentioned.

KEEP READING
About Barack Obama 2012
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

How President Obama Can Win the First Debate

Obamapoligists insist that those of us who see him for what he is are comparing our expectations to his performance, and ignoring the Republican obstructionism that seemingly thwarted his every effort. What they fail to realize is that, in most cases, Obama either capitulated to Republican demands, or compromised before negotiations even began, such as during the health care debate. We are not judging him upon the basis of his performance; we are weighing him by what should be universally accepted standards of truth, justice, and human decency, and finding him seriously wanting.

Running as the “peace” candidate, then increasing our commitment in Afghanistan, trying to extend our occupation of Iraq, increasing murderous, illegal drone warfare, and extending it to additional countries, these things are deal-breakers for some of us, and should be for all progressives. He campaigned as an environmentalist and then sold us out to big oil at every turn. He made a show of “vetoing” the Canadian sludgepipe, then turned around and approved the southern half. He allowed drilling and fracking everywhere, and did virtually nothing to further the development of renewable resources. A Constitutional lawyer, he signed the NDAA with the provision allowing the indefinite detention of American citizens without due process. Even though he assured us that he would never use it, his Justice Department is vigorously appealing the decision of a Federal judge which declared the provision unconstitutional. This, coupled with his insistence that he can murder Americans without due process, so long as he declares them “enemies of the state” is another one of those pesky deal-breakers for some of us.

If you support Obama as a candidate, you are saying that you are in favor of these actions, and want these policies to continue. To believe he’s going to do anything differently in his second term is engaging in more of that magical thinking that got us into this mess in the first place.

KEEP READING
About Barack Obama 2012
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama Presidential Debate Strategy Avoids 'Zingers,' Speaks 'Directly To The American People'

Are you supporting the real Obama, or the idea of Obama?
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

How President Obama Can Win the First Debate

You do realize that this isn't a sporting event like a boxing match, but an opportunity to nail down two very slick and slimy practiced characters who are adept and adroit at not being nailed down?
About Barack Obama 2012
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

How President Obama Can Win the First Debate

If you are an issues voter as you state, you may want to consider this.
About Barack Obama 2012
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

How President Obama Can Win the First Debate

Hilary Rosen, are you supporting the real Obama or the idea of Obama?

A large number of Democratic voters (most of whom call themselves Liberals) want so much for the idea of Obama to be true that they are willing to forget or ignore most of his actions over the last four years. In a likewise manner, they want so much for theidea of America to be true that they still believe that elections can make a difference, and somehow, if Obama has another four years, he will stop the killing, bring the jobs back, restore the Bill of Rights, lessen the inequity in wealth distribution, take steps to mitigate the effects of global warming, and restore the “American Dream.” They can engage in such magical thinking because they have developed the skill of ignoring not only the current political reality, but also the reality of who Obama is, and who he’s working for. Their magical thinking allows them to accept behavior from Obama for which they would excoriate a Republican, such as murdering women and children by the hundreds in an illegal drone war waged over an entire region, and approving any scheme by the oil companies, no matter the cost to the environment.

They can see the reality of the Republican slate and platform well enough, and react with the appropriate disdain but then, like an addict comparing their own insides to other people’s outsides, they compare that regressive platform with the idea of Obama, not the reality. If they were looking at the reality of Obama, they would see a President who toed the Wall Street, big oil, multi-national corporation line throughout his presidency, doing their bidding at every opportunity. They would see the man who appointed Larry Summers and Tim Geithner, signaling Wall Street that his administration would be conducting business as usual. They would see the man who cut a deal with the health insurers precluding single-payer, or even a public option before the negotiations even started in the House. They would see the man who abandoned card-check, and the union workers in Wisconsin, after running as pro-union.

A realistic look at the Nobel Peace Prize winner would reveal the man who tried every diplomatic trick in the book to keep us in Iraq past the expiration of the Status of Forces agreement, until we were finally thrown out kicking and screaming. And then there’s the escalation in Afghanistan, and the drones, always the drones. Without a doubt, they’re the finest creator of terrorists ever devised. I don’t intend to go into the whole extended litany of Obama’s actions; I think you get my drift.

KEEP READING
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Ohio Presidential Polls: Obama Leads Romney By 9 Points, Columbus Dispatch Poll Finds

Are You Voting for Obama, or the Idea of Obama?
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Newt Gingrich: If Obama Wins Reelection, GOP Will Immediately Meet To Plot 2016 Comeback

“So, can we assume you're voting for Romney?

=================================

I am an old, OLD liberal Democrat. I've never voted for a Republican in my decades of voting and never will. At this point, I can't imagine ever voting for a Democrat again. See here.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Newt Gingrich: If Obama Wins Reelection, GOP Will Immediately Meet To Plot 2016 Comeback

The old "lesser of two eviIs" argument reeks of denial. Obama's continuing just about all of the BushCheney policies, even going BushCo one better: How do any of Obama's 'most ardent supporters' explain Obama's doctrine that presidents have the right to k!ll American citizens with no due process, no oversight, and his push for 'indefinite preventive detention' and no transparency of anything a president asserts should be his secret?

As a Democrat, I don't know how any Democrat can get behind this.
If Republicans are such scvm (and I believe they are, and you must, too, as a democrat) and "so dangerous", why isn't Obama investigating and prosecuting them?

Why isn't Obama investigating and prosecuting the greatest heist on the People in all history?

Why are Obama-Democrats continuing the war crimes of BushCheney, blocking investigations and prosecutions into their crimes?

How does a Democratic president, on the heels of the most criminally corrupt administration in the nation's history, not replace Bush-era US attorneys? Presidents may fire US attorneys, and they do so routinely at the beginning of a new administration. It is unusual to fire US attorneys in mid-term (as Bush did) except in cases of gross misconduct (which wasn’t the case during the BushAdministration). Instead of returning the democracy to the American people, Obama's AttorneyGeneral has US attorneys going after legalized medicinal marijuana in the states and Bush-style obscenity prosecutions:

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_691667.html

How do Obama's 'most ardent supporters' explain his putting Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, veterans' care, et al, on the table for benefits' cuts?

And then there's the escalation of wars, continued occupation of Afghanistan, NDAA, and Obama's atrocious environmental record.

You defend Obama at the expense of your own best interests. As long as his numbers remain high, he does the bidding of corporations and establishment elites.

Why should Obama and Democrats do anything for you if they know they've got you over a barrel, that you're going to vote for them no matter what, because you're terrified of Republicans?
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Newt Gingrich: If Obama Wins Reelection, GOP Will Immediately Meet To Plot 2016 Comeback

We're not limited to voting for just Democrats and Republicans. There are other alternatives besides sitting out the election or voting for Republicans. There are other candidates running as independents, from Green to Libertarian, in just about every race. If for no other reason than to get the 5 percent that is necessary for getting a seat at the table, I think that may be enough for great numbers of Democratic voters this time around. And we'd better do it because with each passing day it becomes impossible to turn this all around. The 2010 midterms and the 2012 primaries swept out a bunch of incumbent Blue Dogs.

Here's a list of all of the candidates running for president. All that keeps anyone of them from winning is perception. And apparently Obama doesn't agree with you, and has endorsed Independent/Republican candidates over Democrats (Lincoln Chaffee, Charlie Crist, Arlen Specter are just a few examples). If you don't understand the necessity for supporting your choices on the national ticket with your choices 'downticket' (state races), and the importance of having Democrats as governors and controlling the state houses, then you failed to learn the lessons of 2000, 2004, 2010, and Florida, and Ohio, and New Mexico, and Pennsylvania, etc., etc., etc., etc. For a president to endorse another party's candidate as Obama did in 2010 was incredible.

KEEP READING
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obamanomics: A Counterhistory

Romney: The Less Effective Evil (Making Obama The MORE Effective Evil):

“Austerity is killing the economy and causing terrible hardships, but [Democrats] didn’t make that case.”

“[Democrats] leapt upon the words which even Romney called “inelegantly stated” and in the process showed their own brand of evil. [Democrats] could have pointed out that Americans should expect decent housing and medical care. They could have noted that there are nations around the world who do provide for their citizens’ basic needs, and that they are more advanced as a result.”

“Instead of shooting fish in the barrel when even conservative pundits piled on the Romney condemnation, they could have advocated for a different conversation about the role of government in our lives. Austerity is killing the economy and causing terrible hardships, but [Democrats] didn’t make that case. Because there are enough Americans with some degree of need for government support, the Romney comments made for great political theater. But if [Democrats] were interested it could have been an opportunity for so much more.”

“Obama proved that he has no more regard for people living on the margins than Romney has when he put Social Security and Medicare on the budget cutting table. He convened a budget deficit commission and packed it with pro-austerity conservatives without anyone in either party having asked him to do so. If he is re-elected he will waste no time in making another grand bargain with the Republicans which will come at the expense of the 47%.”
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obamanomics: A Counterhistory

In the closing days of the healthcare debate and legislation when getting change in our healthcare system was possible, Obama pulled that stunt (a Brooks' Brothers-type rally in Kucinich's state) after all of the progressives who had pledged to not vote for a bill without a public option had caved -- Obama didn't need Kucinich EXCEPT to break the back of the call for a public option, to break the momentum of the left's call for it. What Kucinich did was even more treacherous, carried even more betrayal than the other progressives who had caved. And what the Kucinich-tale shows us is how selling out, how caving to save yourself ("to fight another day" is what you try to sell it) never works:

The DLC-controlled Democratic Party machine is redistricting Kucinich out of a seat.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obamanomics: A Counterhistory

Obama could've taken any of those bills to the buIIy puIpit, and done what he did in 2008 to get 10 million more people than have ever voted for any presidential candidate in the history of the nation to vote for him, a black man in good old raclst America where they said it couldn't be done.

Obama could've pulled another 'Kucinich' (see next comment) on any Democratic member of Congress who didn't support what was one of a long list of broken campaign promises to the base of the Democratic Party (70% of Democratic voters).

He could've pulled 'a Nelson', aka 'a Landrieu' (buying their votes, throwing in some sweetener specific to their state which makes the pain of going against their 'values' easier to take); he, HarryReid, NancyPelosi, all have done it before when it's something that Democrats really want.

But he didn't.

There is nothing that Democrats in Congress are doing that Obama hasn't signed off on, much less ordered.

When you are the president, you are the head of your political party. When your political party controls both Houses of Congress and the WhiteHouse, you do what the head of your party tells you to do. The only people who don't understand this are those who've never worked in politics.

Democrats like to hide this from the people, and lend the illusion of democracy (small 'd'), like "herding cats", "no organized party", etc., but that's how it is, and it's the only reason there are political parties. If you don't get behind what the leader of your political party tells you to do, you're going to find your life really cold and lonely for the duration of your term in office. Come election time, you won't have the party behind you, and that is certain deth for your time in office.

Do you know what and who the DLC/TheThird Way/NoLabels is?

You defend Obama at the expense of your own best interests. As long as his numbers remain high, he does the bidding of corporations and establishment elites.

Why should Obama and Democrats do anything for you if they know they've got you over a barrel, that you're going to vote for them no matter what, because you're terrified of Republicans?

KEEP READING
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obamanomics: A Counterhistory

Democrats could even have changed the supermajority rule (it does NOT have to be done at the beginning of a new Congress, as some argued). It can be done at any time (see page 6 - http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/45448.pdf ].

But Democrats put off their critics for not forcing the Republicans to actually filibuster and changing Senate Rule 22 during the session by assuring fed-up Democratic voters, "We'll change the rule come the beginning of the next Congress".

They didn't.

There's not just one way (or even two) for Democrats to get bills passed without Republican votes.

http://www.senate.gov/CRSReports/crs-publish.cfm?pid='0E%2C*P%2C%3B%3F %22%20%20%20%0A

http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/2009/08/hertzberg-on-the-constitutionality-of-the-filibuster/

But Obama and the DLC-controlled DemocraticParty didn't and aren't doing that. Because it might actually work to get Democratic voters' legislative agenda made into the law of the land and do good for the People. And that's not what Obama and Company are there for. They're there to do the work of the transnational corporations. Along with the Republicans, as was clearly evidenced the time that Harry Reid kept the Senate open (pro forma) so that Obama couldn't make recess appointments, collaborating with Republicans to keep progressives and liberals out of government. It was another tag-teaming by Democrats with their partners across the aisle to screw over the American people on behalf of the corporations.

Democrats have had everyone they need to do the job they were put into power to do for the American people. They don't want to do it.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obamanomics: A Counterhistory

Three reasons why that White House talking point is BS:

1) Obama had a filibuster-proof Senate after 2008 not just once but twice (Remember Arlen Specter's switch to the Democratic Party?),

2) Obama could have used reconciliation (and did use it for that insurance-phRma gift-package, ACA) for a real stimulus bill and many of the other bills,

3) Senate rule 22 gives the Senate Majority Leader (Harry Reid) the power to either accept the threat or make them actually do it. Whenever Reid has made them do it, whenever Reid has called the GOP's bluff, they've crumbled. Reid has had no problem forcing the GOP to actually filibuster when it's something that the DLC wants and perceives it needs. For example, when Democrats needed unemployment benefits to continue because the masses were becoming 'critical', Reid had no problem calling Republican Jim Bunning's bluff to filibuster. Reid said, "Bring in the cots, do it" and Bunning and the GOP caved. Benefits for unemployed workers continued.

KEEP READING
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Ann Romney: Biggest Fear Is For Mitt's 'Mental Well-Being'

It's really hard not to believe that the Romneys aren't on the Obama payroll.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama Medicare Plan: No Voucher But Maybe A Bill

We've been doing it your way, putting the lesser of two eviIs into office, for 20 years now, and the government and the DemocraticParty keeps moving farther to the right. That's because your way is to lie to the American people and put Republicans-in-Democrats'-clothing into office. At the rate this is going, Republicans won't have to bother getting Roe overturned (why bother outlawing abortion when you've made it virtually impossible to obtain one?). Regulating banks and Wall Street won't be necessary because the top 1 percent will have ALL of the money.

The disabled and elderly will be dead, so privatizing Social Security won't be much of an issue. Schools will be all privatized under Democrats and only those employed and making a great salary will be able to send their children to good charter schools. PBS has had its funding slashed under Democrats so children will have no commercial-free children's programming and will be rank-and-file corporate slaves. And the wars, expanded under Obama and Democrats (beyond what BushCheney did) will still be going on when your children have children.

If you are a liberal, if you and I are on the same side and want real Democratic policies, and going about getting them your way (protecting Obama, reelecting DLC Democrats) is getting Republican policies, not Democratic policies, when do you realize that maybe you don't know what you're talking about?

When do you realize that you've become that classic definition for 'insan!ty' ("Doing the same thing over and over again, expecting different results")?

Do you ever realize it?
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama Medicare Plan: No Voucher But Maybe A Bill

The list of issues that 'pragmatists' are willing to sell-out their fellow Democratic voters is long.

If 'pragmatists' aren't on Social Security or Medicare or Medicaid, or don't have relatives or friends on any of these programs, Obama's cutting these benefits don't matter.

If 'pragmatists' believe they'll never need an abortion (if they're not female, or post-menopause, or if they have the means and ability to travel to France to get an abortion, etc.), then assaults on a woman's right to choose aren't 'deal-breakers'.

If 'pragmatists' are employed, if they don't own a home (or if they do own a home and able to make mortgage payments), if they have healthcare insurance through their work, if they're young and living in their parents' garage, if they haven't had any significant health problems, if their parents/grandparents are dead, if their parents/grandparents are alive and supporting them (or not supporting them, and able to support themselves), if they can't get married, etc., it's not their problem.

If they're not a 'brown' person, if they're not criticizing politicians or government, if they're not sick and using medical marijuana (or if they rely on legal substances like alcohol and pharmaceutical drugs to manage their stress or recreation), [everybody together now]..."IT'S NOT MY PROBLEM!"

[Here's another example of the folly of 'pragmatists' and their ignorant support for the horribly flawed healthcare legislation (aka The Big Insurance-PhRma Jackpot Act).]

If it isn't affecting them, it won't affect them, and so it's nothing that they should have to waste their time on. Or in their 'bottom line'.

There's nothing "pragmatic" about these people. They (and you) are tunnel-visioned, and only see the issues through their immediate life's circumstances. Some might say that they're in denial. Others might say they're selfish, "narcissistically-inclined". Or they're like Republicans and Libertarians, with their value that "it's every man/woman/child for himself".

But they're certainly not about Democratic values.

KEEP READING

Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama Medicare Plan: No Voucher But Maybe A Bill

Absolute purity = Obama and Democrats haven't caved to Republicans on your issues yet

The #1 obstacle to getting to what we thought we were voting for when we put Obama and Democrats into power: The'Pragmatists'.

Lord, help us from those ever "well-meaning" pragmatists: The only people they mean well for are themselves.

We hear about "pragmatism" a lot from Obama's 'most ardent supporters'. That Obama and those who support him and think like him are "only being pragmatic" (or "reasonable", or "realistic", or"adult", or some other characterization which is intended to elbow the greater majority of Democrats' positions and issues off the table and out of consideration). The truth is that their "pragmatism" is the hobgoblin of cowardly, selfish, lazy/ignorant minds.

'Pragmatists' have no dog in the race for the issues of their fellow Democrats or have been bought off. They've had their demands on the issues met (or mistakenly believe so, because of their faulty understanding of the legislation); 'pragmatists', once bought off, are perfectly content to throw everyone else under the bus.

'Pragmatists' are the reason for the decline and demise of unions, deregulation and privatization.

Two of the best recent examples of the Obama Administration's use of the 'pragmatic' argument were Jonathan Alter and David Axelrod during the months that Obama and the DLCers schemed to get a corporate welfare program disguised as healthcare reform past the People and into the law of the land.

See here.

And here.

And here.

And here.

KEEP READING
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obamanomics: A Counterhistory

Obama was a community organizer before he went to law school.

As far as McCain is concerned, you might be interested in reading this: If McCain Had Won (things wouldn't have been much different, if at all).
About Barack Obama 2012
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obamanomics: A Counterhistory

Obama's calling for more "austerity", and in his stump speeches he's promising long term hurt on the People. Long term, beyond another term, beyond his presidency. He's promising cuts to vital services when he should be calling for greater spending, more stimulus.

Take a look at what's going on in France:

France has unveiled its budget for 2013, avoiding big austerity spending cuts in favour of higher taxes on the wealthy and big businesses.

French Prime Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault confirmed that there is to be a new 75% tax rate for people earning more than 1m euros (£800,000; $1.3m) a year.

This is what a Democratic president should be doing.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obamanomics: A Counterhistory

It's not as if we hadn't tread these waters before. We had a blueprint for how to get through this ~~recession~~ Depression with what FDR did in the 1930s. We even had a blueprint for how to avoid the stall we're in now, from when FDR caved to Republicans after the initial stimulus funds had shown positive effects and he took his foot off the gas (stimulus funds) at their demand.

The stimulus was weak tea. Intentionally. Just enough to let us believe that Obama and Congress were doing something, but little enough to let the fleecing from continue. It was just enough to keep us from marching on the White House and Congress with pitchforks and torches. Politicians' intent was never to restore what's been stolen from us. It was just to stonewall and stall for time, misdirect our attention, so that the corporate class could keep on keeping on.

Obama's in office to mellow-talk us into accepting that which we'd never stand still for if we had contentious fire-in-the-belly Democratic politicians actually fighting on our behalf. Obama's in the White House to ease us into accepting the greatest heist in the history of the world, and never even think about trying to get back the money that 's been stolen from the middle and poor classes.
What Obama's doing is presiding over the end game of America, letting the 'Haves' pick the (our) bones clean. The more we see of Obama in action, the more 'deals' he makes, the more people realize that Obama's a continuation of the cruel policies of BushCheney. You don't put a Tim Geithner into the Treasury if you're a man of the people. You don't put a Larry Summers in to head your Economic Council. You don't put a Bill Daly in as your Chief of Staff.

Both parties' politicians have signed on to deregulation and privatization of America's resources, and yes, dismantling the New Deal and Great Society programs. Programs that created the greatest middle class in the history of the world. For 4 decades, the poor and middle classes have been losing economic ground, and that's been the plan of both parties, despite the rhetoric from Democrats. Nothing that has happened in the last 40 years happened without the Democrats signing on.

Do you see Obama calling for the reinstatement of Glass-Steagall?
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obamanomics: A Counterhistory

Obama defenders invoke a blatant myth to shield Obama from blame: "he wanted and tried so very hard to end all of this, but Congress would not let him". Especially now that we’re in an Election Year, and in light of very recent developments, it’s long overdue to document clearly how misleading that excuse is. Read The Obama GITMO Myth by Glenn Greenwald.

About Barack Obama 2012
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obamanomics: A Counterhistory

Obama had to deal with BlueDogDem legislators and government-hating Repub exremists. There wasn't enough progressives overall.

===============================================

Obama takes tools for fighting Republicans off the table, whether it's refusing to investigate and prosecute Wall Street and the CIA torturers to benching progressive groups when it comes to pressuring members of Congress on legislation like single payer and public option:

Friday, December 17, 2010
Why is Obama leaving the grass roots on the sidelines?
By Sam Graham-Felsen

But there's a larger problem looming.

Obama needs twice as much grass-roots support in the next election - and he's not going to get it by sidelining his supporters. If he continues to play politics as usual, Obama risks alienating not just the left but anyone who believed in the promise of bringing change to Washington.

Obama needs this list in 2012 - and he needs its members to dig much deeper than in the last election. The CitizensUnited ruling has allowed campaigns to become an unprecedented corporate cash free-for-all - and Obama will likely need to raise far more than $500 million from the grass roots to be competitive.

While Obama's political team intensely focuses on independents, the grassroots list seems like an afterthought. Every time Obama chooses to compromise behind closed doors, & keeps OFA quiet, he might win over a few independents. But he's also conveying a message that the grassroots doesn't really matter, that the bottom-up ethos of his candidacy doesn't apply to his presidency.

On Thursday, Obama and WhiteHouse staff met with a group of OFA volunteers who presented survey data and anecdotes on the state of the grass-roots base since the midterm elections. This is a positive sign, but the White House should move beyond gestures. Obama needs a senior adviser whose job is to be a liaison to the movement that elected him. This person needs to be in the room in senior-level strategy meetings, asking: How is this going to impact the list? What message will this send to the grass roots?

Look at the pro-corporate legislation Obama's been able to get through when the 13 million and the traditional Democratic-supporting groups are sidelined: Healthcare legislation that doesn't deliver affordable, quality medical treatment to everyone, but is in actuality a cataclysmic money sink, a massive transfer of wealth from citizens to private insurance companies with no cost controls or treatment guarantees; and finance reform that wouldn't have prevented the economic meltdown and won't prevent it happening again; and extending Bush's tax cuts and added gifts like estate tax relief.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obamanomics: A Counterhistory

Obama had to deal with BlueDogDem legislators and government-hating Repub exremists. There wasn't enough progressives overall.

===============================================

Obama did what he could to discourage Democratic turnout in 2010, thus preventing getting more progressives.

Just before the 2010 midterms, Obama broadcast that he would be doing more of the same, even if Democrats remained the majority and in control of both Houses of Congress. More caving by Obama and Democrats, to Republicans:

Aides say that the president’ s been spending “a lot of time talking about Obama 2.0,” brainstorming with administration officials about the best way to revamp the strategies and goals of the White House.

And despite the predictions that Democrats may relinquish a large degree of legislating power, including perhaps control of the House and even Senate, Obama isn’t thinking of the next two years as a period that’ll be marked with the same obstructive nature from the GOP.

“It may be that regardless of what happens after this election, [Republicans] feel more responsible, either because they didn’t do as well as they anticipated, and so the strategy of just saying no to everything and sitting on the sidelines and throwing bombs didn’t work for them,” Obama says. “Or they did reasonably well, in which case the American people are going to be looking to them to offer serious proposals and work with me in a serious way.”

Dick Durbin says Obama’s post-election agenda “will have to be limited and focused on the things that are achievable and high priorities for the American people.” Tom Daschle says Obama has to reach out more: “The keyword is inclusion. He’s got to find ways to be inclusive. “

This after Republicans couldn’t have been clearer, from even before Obama got into the White House, that they had no intention of working with him or Democrats.

This and broadcasting "more of the same seeking of bipartisanship" and Republican-like legislation is before the 2010 midterms is exactly like what NancyPelosi did prior to the 2006 midterms -- She announced that if Democrats took control over Congress, impeaching Bush was "off the table". The reason to do that is to be able to spin after the election, "We told you what we were going to do before the election, so our success in retaining our seats means you were voting for what we broadcast."

KEEP READING
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obamanomics: A Counterhistory

President Obama had to deal with Blue Dog Dems (Repub lite) legislators and government-hating Repub exremists. There wasn't enough progressives overall.

===========================================

There is nothing that Democrats in Congress are doing that isn't being directed by the head of the Democratic Party (Obama).

When you are the president, you are the head of your political party. When your political party controls both Houses of Congress and the White House, you do what the head of your party tells you to do. There is nothing that Democrats in Congress are doing that Obama hasn't signed off on, much less ordered. The only people who don't understand this are those who have never worked in politics.

Democrats like to hide this from the people, and lend the illusion of democracy (small 'd'), like "herding cats", "no organized party", etc., but that's how it is, and it's the only reason there are political parties.

If you do not get behind what the leader of your political party tells you to do, you're going to find your life really cold and lonely for the duration of your term in office. Come election time, you will NOT have the party behind you, and that is certain death for your time in office.

Just to show you where Obama's and the DLC's real heart lies, there are so many things he and the DLC/DNC could have done, could be doing, to get real Democratic legislation through, but don't.

Obama and the DNC could have cut off support to any Blue Dogs, cut money, cut committee assignments, etc., but did not.

There is plenty that a President and a Speaker of the House and a Senate Majority Leader can do to pressure representatives and senators into voting as you want them to vote. We saw that Obama had no problem doing it when he wanted and needed Blue Dogs like Ben Nelson and Mary Landrieu's votes -- He literally bought them.

There is nothing that the Blue Dogs are doing that Obama and the DLC doesn't want them to do.

KEEP READING
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obamanomics: A Counterhistory

President Obama had to deal with Blue Dog Dems (Repub lite) legislators and government-hating Repub exremists. There wasn't enough progressives overall.

===========================================

"Privately, Obama describes himself as a Blue Dog Democrat."

Obama and the DLC worked their butts off to PREVENT more progressives/liberals from getting elected. Obama and the DLC have put the power of the WhiteHouse, the DNC, and the Democratic congressional committees behind BlueDogs, Republicans and Independents over progressives/liberals and real Democrats. Some, but not all, examples:

BlueDog BlancheLincoln over progressive Democrat Lt. Governor BillHalter.

Republican-turned-Independent ArlenSpecter over progressive Democrat JoeSestak.

Republican-turned-Independent LincolnChaffee over Democrat FrankCaprio (which, in turn, was an effective endorsement of the Republican JohnLoughlin over Democrat DavidCicilline for the congressional seat Democrat PatrickKennedy retired from, and all of the other seats up for grab in RhodeIsland).

Republican-turned-Independent CharlieCrist over liberal Democrat KendrickMeek.

Obama supports voting third parties, even when it risks Democratic turnout.

Republicans, with the smallest minority, have managed to thwart Democrats, who've had the greatest majority in decades. You would think that with Republicans controlling the House, Democrats would've turned the tables and thwarted Republicans' continuing legislation like Bush's tax cuts for the rich? Are Democrats just stupld?

Obama never pressured BenNelson (or BlancheLincoln, or any BlueDog). The Democratic leadership could've taken away committee chairs (BlancheLincoln's, too) of members in their caucus that filibustered a PublicOption for healthcare. They didn't.

The DNC could've taken away reelection funds. They didn't.

Reid could've actually forced Republicans and turncoat Democratic senators to filibuster. He didn't (and doesn't).

The ProgressiveCaucus could have kept their pledge about not voting for a bill that didn't include a robust PublicOption. They didn't.

Obama DID unleash the attack dogs to go after HowardDean when Dean said it was a lousy bill. Dean was then forced to get back into line. Obama went after Kucinich, the last remaining holdout on the ProgressiveCaucus, for threatening to vote no on the healthcare bill, and we all know how that ended.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

© Blogger templates Newspaper by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008

Back to TOP